Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43607
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SANKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP.BY – Respondent
CRL RC 823 2019
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 304(A) IPC - INTERPRETATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - SHIFTING OF BURDEN OF PROOF - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CAUSE OF DEATH - MULTIPLE ORGAN FAILURE - NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - DRIVER OF VEHICLE - REVERSE GEAR - NOISE LEVEL - SIGNAL FROM SUPERVISOR - PERVERSE CONVICTION
Fact of the Case:
The accused was driving a trailer lorry in reverse gear in a harbour, based on signals from the deceased, who was a supervisor. The deceased died after being shifted from one hospital to another, due to multiple organ failure. The accused was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(A) IPC by the trial court and the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the conviction was perverse and set it aside. The court held that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt had to be extended to the accused.
Issues: Whether the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court was perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the following factors:- The original injury suffered by the deceased was a simple injury (337 IPC).- The cause of death was multiple organ failure, which was a result of the frequent shifting of the patient from one hospital to another.- The accused was not responsible for the medical complications that resulted in the death of the deceased.- The deceased was negligent in standing on the path of the vehicle coming on the reverse.- The noise level in the harbour premises made it difficult for the accused to hear the signal from the deceased.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the criminal revision case and set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 30.10.2023
Delivered on: 22.12.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2019
S. Sankar
: Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
Vs
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
B5, Thuraimugam Police Station,
Chennai
: Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401(1) of
Cr.P.C to set aside the judgment dated 03.07.2019 made in Crl.A.No.2 of
2017 on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai in
C.C.No.2405 of 2011 on the file of learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Georgetown, Chennai.
For Petitioner
..
Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For Respondents
..
S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2019
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Case had been filed to set aside the judgment dated
03.07.2019 made in Crl.A.No.2 of 2017 on the file of learned IV Additional
Sessions Court, Chennai in C.C.No.2405 of 2011 on the file of learned XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, Chennai.
2. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the
conviction of the Revision Petitioner by the learned XVI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai is perverse not on proper appreciation of entire materials
available before the trial Court. The confirmation of the judgment of
conviction by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai is also
perverse. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeks to
set aside the judgment of conviction.
3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the
Revision Petitioner was driving the Trailer lorry vehicle bearing Registration
No. TN 04 AJ 9329 inside the Harbour, at the early hours. The Trailer lorry
was driven in the reverse, based on the signals given by the Deceased who
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2019
was standing behind the vehicle. In the din early hour and in the high loud
noise inside the Harbour at that time, the Revision Petitioner could not have
heard the signal given by the Deceased. Therefore the FIR was registered in
Crime No.23 of 2011 for offences under Section 297 and 337 of IPC only.
The Deceased died after treatment in very many Hospital, frequently shifted
from one Hospital to another from Stanley Hospital to ESI Hospital and from
there to MIOT Hospital. The Doctors in their evidence had clearly stated that
there was no visible injuries on the body of the Deceased.
4. While so, the conviction by the learned XVI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Chennai and the dismissal of the Appeal by the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai are against Materials available before the
trial Court. Through the evidence of the witnesses both the Courts failed to
appreciate the entire materials available in the evidence.
5. In view of the materials available before the trial Court that the
Accused drove the Trailer lorry in the reverse based on the signal given by the
Deceased who was the Supervisor in Slot-7 giving instructions to shift the
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.823 of 2019
vehicle to Slot-6.
6. Considering the noise level inside the Harbour at the earlier hours
between 3 a.m. to 4 a.m and considering the fact that the FIR in Crime No. 23
of 2011 was registered for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.
Considering the fact that in the evidence of the Doctor P.W-9 who had been
stated that there were no external injuries on the body of the deceased.
7. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) vehemently objected to
the line of arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner
stating that the Two Courts had confirmed the conviction. The Revision Court
cannot re-appreciate the evidence. There is no merit in this Revision Petition.
The trial Court and the Appel
